If Barack Obama had been president in the 1980s, he’d have extended the Russians a line of credit to help them forestall bankruptcy (for a while, anyway) and keep a fresh coat of paint on the Berlin Wall . He’s have opened the nation up to trade and “public-private partnerships” (by companies that agreed to play ball with the Soviets, of course). And he’d ahve not only thrown Solidarity and the legions of the Soviets’ political prisoners under the bus, but stomped on them a few times to keep them there and out of the way, incapable of sidetracking the narrative.
Thankfully, Obama was not president. Reagan was.
[After Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire” – how un-Obama-like can you get?], Anatoly Shcharansky was in the Gulag. (After, he would become Natan Sharansky.) He and his fellow zeks heard what Reagan had done. Had the American president really called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”? Yes. Years later, Sharansky reflected:
“It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell’s Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.”
Barack Obama has thrown the Castros a lifeline – which, with the demise of the USSR and the disintegration of Venezuela, their major benefactors this past fifty years, they need to avoid being put, eventually, to the pike. He was “opened” the country (to those who will play ball with the Castros, the Castros way).
And he’s just re-upped the sentence for every human rights and liberties dissident on the island.
I’m ashamed of this president. That’s nothing new, of course. But it never gets easier.
A very shallow analysis. The US trades with Communist China and Communist Vietnam. How is Cuba different? The isolationist/embargo policies haven’t worked for 60 years. What’s that they say about repeating the same policy over and over and expecting a different result?
from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/23/cuban-dissident-obama-havana-speech-frustrated-opposition
here’s another shallow analysis for you Emery:
This prompts more anger. “How can he talk of a new era when we are stuck with the same old dictator. It’s a contradiction,” González exclaims. “And how can we forget the past when there is no justice, no talk of who created all this pain in the first place.” ….but in the living room of the activist, Obama has lived down to low expectations. “That was a speech that will perpetuate the dictatorship. He didn’t challenge them. He didn’t mention the word ‘opposition’ even once. It was exactly what I expected from him. It was terrible.”
So we are going to borrow money from the Chinese, to give to Castro, who will pocket most of it, but us some to purchase products from the US, most of which will go to connected white people in Cuba.
The isolationist/embargo policies haven’t worked for 60 years
Hmmm… Let’s see… USSR, South Africa, NorK (until Clintoon/Notbright hit the reset button). Just to name a few. Getting buggered too much by the strawman again, eTASS?
Pot meet kettle. Has our isolationist-embargo policies brought Cuba any closer to democracy? Or have we denied the Cubans the opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society has to offer? Lastly, which other nations have a similarl Cold War policy of isolationism towards Cuba?
Emery, you ignorant twaat, if you had half a brain you’d be a threat to society. The Castros have been propped up by their fellow commie dictators since the revolution. One by one, those dictatorships have either dissolved, or, as in the case of Venezuela, destroyed their own economies to the point where they can’t even supply their own basic needs.
The Castro’s were on the brink of being brought to their knees, and Obama arrived in the nick of time to save them. And just to make it all the sweeter, they told Barry to stick his human rights up his ass.
When the Communists are overthrown, 50 years or so down the road, historians will credit Barry Sotero for adding those years of misery to the lives of Cubans.
Emery said:
“A very shallow analysis”
Coincidentally, that is exactly what I think when reading many Emery comments.
Castro nationalized the property of foreign investors. This is a blow to the international economic system; if countries are free to nationalize foreign assets it will end foreign investment. This is what makes Cuba different than China or Russia.
Emery, will the Cuban government reimburse the American companies & individuals that had their property seized by the Castro regime? With interest?
Emery is googling furiously to find an intelligent sounding response gentlemen, be patient.
Found one Tom: “The US trades with Communist China and Communist Vietnam. How is Cuba different?” I haven’t heard a response to that simple question.
“Found one Tom: “The US trades with Communist China and Communist Vietnam. How is Cuba different?” I haven’t heard a response to that simple question.”
Fer God’s sake, Emery, Cuba nationalized US property without compensation. This was the explicit reason given for the embargo. The embargo was imposed two years after Castro took power. The US traded with communist Cuba until 1960.
The MSM is horrible on this, as it is on most other political topics. They will spend hours covering Cuba, but never tell you why the embargo was imposed. Another thing that the MSM will not tell you is that Oswald’s motivation for killing Kennedy was Kennedy’s hostility towards Castro’s government.
Say Tom, I found some mood music for you while you’re squeezing that cottage cheese tonight.
http://youtu.be/YjC0vMIrOAk
“Fer God’s sake, Emery, Cuba nationalized US property without compensation. This was the explicit reason given for the embargo.”
And yet American businesses are eager to get back into Cuba. Go figure.
So Emery isn’t just playing dumb? Shocking.
If the “Cuban missle crisis” happened today, how would it play out?
Like who, eTASS? We are ready for your parade of spent strawservicemen. Oh, and hope your current strawman enjoys a bigger orifice reamed wide open by answers to your questions. And why is it that YOU never answer questions?
China and Vietnam allow a free trade market to exist, for starters.
“And yet American businesses are eager to get back into Cuba. Go figure.”
This is a non sequitur. Are you implying that Cuba did not nationalize US property without compensation? Or are you implying that the people investing in Cuba are idiots?
You might want to look at what happened to Haiti when its revolutionary government took French property without compensation.
China and Vietnam also have a degree of de facto religious liberty–it’s said that up to 100 million in China go to technically illegal, but tolerated, house churches.
I wonder how much exposure these American companies have to future nationalization by the Castros? If they invest hundreds of millions in infrastructure, they could get screwed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/world/americas/talks-begin-in-cuba-on-confiscated-us-property-worth-billions.html
The US holds all of the cards with Cuba. But then, we did with Iran as well.
BG: your suggestion regarding The Right Coast was spot on. Thanks for the heads up. http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/
Another difference between Reagan and Obama regarding totalitarian states; Reagan inherited Nixon’s opening of China. No such luck with Blago.
And, ahem, it was President Clinton who normalized relations with Vietnam, not any Republican. But apart from the facts, great work, Emery.
Did you bump your head BB? I didn’t reference credit for normalizing relations with China or Vietnam. Do you just spitball these preposterous comments as you go?
Emery, I dont ever say anything online I wouldnt say face to face, Mitch can vouch for that. I also dont hide my identity.
We both know what would happen if you ever got within my arm’s reach, but that’s not likely; you’re a cowardly little snot rag hiding behind anonymity. I understand that not only do you fear for your teeth, but you don’t want anyone you know to learn how stupid you are, or that you are a pathological liar. So I’ll satisfy myself with the thought of you trying to hightail your flabby ass out of Dodge if that meeting ever did occur.
Unless Mitch sees fit to deprive you of your anonymity, of course…. 😉
To be honest Emery (honesty is something else I value), I didn’t knock the teeth out of the one Lefty man enough to confront me personally; I just slapped him down like a bitch. It was sufficient for both of us.
What is amazing to me is how little Obama has gotten in return, not just for his Cuba deal, but for the Iranian nuke deal as well. It is difficult to believe that he actually looked at what we could get and went for it on behalf of the American people. It was more like he decided he was already going to do a deal, let the Iranians/Cubans know it, and then rolled over for them.
For example, we are allowing US dollars to flow into both Iran and Cuba before they have to deliver anything material. Nations are nations. Both Iran and Cuba seem to have negotiators that are out to get what they can get from us. So we gave Iran the money upfront. If they decide to change the deal, based on a “new understanding” of the terms, what do we do? Call them names? Ditto the Cubans. Any lifting of the embargo should have been made conditional on measurable progress towards compensation for US property nationalized by the Cubans and release of political prisoners. Instead, Obama gave them everything up front. He did this to lock in the deal by giving powerful interests a stake in keeping the embargo off of Cuba. This does two really awful things: it puts us in a weaker position going forward in negotiating for compensation, and it is another attempt by Obama to short circuit American democracy.
There are people that are very interested in the nationalized properties. They consider them assets with a dollar value. It is not an academic game, lawsuits will fly. The American taxpayer may end up footing the bill.
The American people of 2017 and later get to decide what to do with Cuba. Obama does not. He is not president for life, though I imagine he wishes that he was. In case you haven’t noticed, Obama is not a big fan of democracy in the United States.
It occurs to me just how clueless you are to allow such an image to be captured and posted online. Nice display of self loathing. LOL.
http://static.flickr.com/23/33908462_f72484ce82_o.jpg
BG: The people opposing opening relations with Cuba say we aren’t getting anything in return. That is a weak excuse. “Fer God’s sake” we have relations and trade with the House of Saud which actively supports and promotes Wahhabism.
This change is long overdue. The embargo has only served to keep the Castro regime in power. It helped them to limit the information available to the Cuban people, and allowed them to blame the results of their own mismanagement on the embargo. Opening Cuba is about future business opportunities for American corporations and for (some) Cubans to make a little money. Historically, human rights have not been a top concern in foreign relations, and the Obama Administration only makes them an issue with countries when there is no more pressing concern. The main issue is whether this latest thrust at dollar diplomacy was the best deal Obama could’ve reached with the Castro brothers.
“The people opposing opening relations with Cuba say we aren’t getting anything in return. That is a weak excuse.”
Emery, If I’m understanding you correctly, your contention is that the sole purpose of our foreign policy should be to prove what nice guys we are by not asking for anything?
The embargo has only served to keep the Castro regime in power.
Well, no. The response to the embargo by other socialist dictatorships acting in their various, anti-US interests – first the USSR, then Venezuela – kept the Castros in power.
MBerg: What Has 60 years of the embargo and isolation policies accomplished?
Emery; you asked how Cuba is different than China and Vietnam. I explained. Deal with it.
Swiftee wrote: “Unless Mitch sees fit to deprive you of your anonymity, of course.”
If that were to be the case, MBberg would become just another Gawker style website. Something which he claims to detest.
If you’re going to take shots (in the dark) you shiuld expect some in return. I won’t pretend to understand the back stories to your little internet flame wars. Unless you care to enlighten us, it’s really none of my business.
Emery, you pencil necked little motherfucker, you can spew your pathetic little bile at me all day; look deep into the eyes in that picture, and see your reflection, I enjoy watching you squirm. You bring my sweet wife into your fucking stalking routine, you make my extra-special list, pal. Since there is nothing I can do about it, I won’t lose any sleep over it; but suffice it to say we can pretty much guarantee 100% you will never crawl out from your hidey hole to appear at any social function connected with Mitch, or this website lest you find yourself in an uncomfortable position.
If you believe that the Cuban embargo was intended to stop them from being communists, you are mistaken. If you believe that the embargo was intended to end Castro’s government you are mistaken. You need to rid yourself of mistaken ideas about the purpose of the embargo if you would like to determine if ending the embargo was a good or a bad thing.
Republican Congressman Tom Emmer supports the ending of the embargo. Emmer also stated today that 70 to 80 % of Americans also support ending the Cold War policy of embargo and American isolationism regarding Cuba. I agree with Tea Party endorsed Tom Emmer’s sensible position. Ironically Mr. Emmer also stated “the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” Say Tom, do you think he read my comments prior to his interviews on MPR today? http://www.mprnews.org/
Emery, you fetid bag of liquid shit, he probably read “your” comments from their original source. Cut out the Pathological liar in the middle.
That’s Mr. Fetid bag of liquid shit to you! 😱
Castro, of course, was doing the same thing (not paying for the American property that he stole) for over half a century. This turned out to be the wisest thing that he could have done.
FYI, Emmer is pretty clear that his position re: Cuba is based on the commercial interests of Cargill.
You know — giant, evil ag conglomerate Cargill?
Fuck you Emery
Culturally, Cuba is more of a Latin American nation than a Caribbean Island nation. It is more like Mexico than it is like Jamaica.
Latin American nations have interesting similarities. They tend to produce megacities. Most of their economic base is based on the land — ag and mineral production. The usual system of land ownership is called ‘latifundia.’ This means that most of the productive land ends up in the hands of several small groups, usually family groups. Yankees can deal with a system like this. It makes trade with Latin American nations easier than if it had to deal with tens or thousands of landowners. Usually you end up with something rather feudal in appearance. Wealthy landowners, usually hidalgo families, live in big houses and control the politics, while the labor is done by landless peasants. The weird thing is that occasionally there are revolutions that reform the land ownership system. The hidalgos are run off their land, and it is redistributed to the peasants.
After a few decades the same system reemerges: the peasants’ land is bought or taken from them, and the productive land ends up in the hands of a few hidalgo families.
Castro is essentially a hidalgo. His father was a Spanish emigre.
This is the thumbnail history of Latin American economics.
Latin American nations have not been colonies almost for as long a period as the United States. Latin America is not Africa.
Post WW2, revolutionary, anti Norte Americano sentiment swept the region, fueled by the Soviets. Many Latin American countries rejected the defacto mercantile system: They sold raw materials to the US. The us manufactured goods from the raw materials and sold them back to the Latin Americans. Many populist leaders convinced their people that they were poor because America was rich.
So there began an economic independence movement. Latin American countries would make their own cars, refrigerators, and televisions.
They went broke. Any economist can tell you why.
So they got bailed out by the international banks. As a condition of the bailouts, the countries had to do what they could make money at and repay the banks. This was the same thing that they were doing before the independence movements: sell raw materials to the Yanqi’s. The big change in Latin American economics since the 80s has been automation. You don’t need a hundred peasants to farm a thousand acres of land anymore. You need maybe ten. So people have been leaving the countryside for the cities.
Bento, we might note as well that some of the bright spots in Latin America are where automation doesn’t work well (at least not yet); coffee, chocolate, and the wineries of Chile and Argentina. Breaks down those economies of scale quite nicely.
If Cuber (as Rush would say) had a touch of capitalism, I dare suggest they could do that with products made from tobacco and sugar……
Bikebubba, in the last decade many central American countries have switched from boutique crops to ethanol producing crops to feed the US gasoline market. Meet the the new globalism, same as the old colonialism . . .
MBerg: What Has 60 years of the embargo and isolation policies accomplished?
You incessant pissant. Your question was answered. Go back and reread the thread and stop moving goalposts. Oh, wait, I forgot, eTASS does not have capacity to comprehend and pay attention. Squirrel!
Bento; agreed, and it’s every bit as nasty when it’s on our side of the Gulf of Mexico.